David Black, Associate Professor in the School of Communication and Culture at Royal Roads University, presented these slides as part of the Cybera Summit 2010 session "Techno-skeptics: A Critique of the Role of Technology in Western Society". For more information, visit http://www.cybera.ca/techno-skeptics-critique-role-technology-western-society

1. Cybera
2010
Making
Peace
with
the
Machine:
The
case
for
technological
realism
September
22,
2010

2. Technological
realism:
• Technological
realism
is
a
posi=on
that
recognizes
that
we
cannot
un-­‐ the
middle
range
view
invent
technology
or
erase
the
values
in
Western
culture
that
have
made
it
so
technologically
innova=ve
• But
it
recognizes
that,
in
the
name
of
realism,
that
we
cannot
benefit
by
either
uncri=cally
embracing
or
rejec=ng
technology
• We
have
to
be
as
smart
as
the
technologies
we
create,
but
we
need
to
define
that
intelligence
in
poli=cal,
cultural
and
ethical
terms,
not
just
in
our
ingenuity
in
crea=ng
and
marke=ng
new
technologies
Richard
Feynman
• Technological
realism
is
a
body
of
wri=ng
about
technology
highly
sensi=ve
to
the
poli=cal,
cultural
and
ethical
nature
of
technology

3. Technological
realism:
the
middle-­‐range
view
“As
technorealists,
we
seek
to
expand
the
fer=le
middle
ground
between
techno-­‐utopianism
and
neo-­‐Luddism.
We
are
technology
‘cri=cs’
in
the
same
way,
and
for
the
same
reasons,
that
others
are
food
cri=cs,
art
cri=cs,
or
literary
cri=cs.
We
can
be
passionately
op=mis=c
about
some
technologies,
skep=cal
and
disdainful
of
others.
S=ll,
our
goal
is
neither
to
champion
nor
dismiss
technology,
but
rather
to
understand
it
and
apply
it
in
a
manner
more
consistent
with
basic
human
values.”
From
Technological
Realism
website

4. Technological
realism:
major
principles
 Technologies
are
not
neutral.
 The
Internet
is
revolu=onary,
but
not
Utopian.
 Informa=on
is
not
knowledge.
 Understanding
technology
should
be
an
essen=al
component
of
ci=zenship.
 Governments
and
markets
both
have
a
role
in
the
development
and
management
of
technology.

5. Exhibit
#1:
• Mumford
was
an
American
historian
of
Lewis
Mumford
science,
architecture,
and
technology,
and
wrote
on
literature
and
current
affairs
• Mumford
had
a
remarkable
intellectual
range,
and
is
regarded
as
one
of
the
best
minds
in
the
20th
century
• His
major
scholarly
books
rela=ng
to
technology
are:
 Technics
and
Civiliza/on
(1934)
 The
Myth
of
the
Machine
(1967)
• Long
before
it
was
fashionable,
Mumford
sought
to
balance
the
presence
of
technology
in
our
lives
with
design
principles
taken
from
ecology
Mumford
(1895-­‐1990)

6.
“If
we
are
to
prevent
megatechnics
from
further
controlling
and
deforming
every
aspect
of
human
culture,
we
shall
be
able
to
do
so
only
with
the
aid
of
a
radically
different
model
derived
directly,
not
from
machines,
but
from
living
organisms
and
organic
complexes
(ecosystems).”
Mumford,
The
Myth
of
the
Machine

7. Mumford:
against
the
“myth
of
the
machine”
• The
“myth
of
the
machine”
was
Mumford’s
term
for
our
mistaken
belief
that
technology
is
the
factor
that
ul=mately
determines
the
direc=on
of
history
• Insofar
as
we
believe
in
what
technology
cri=cs
call
“technological
determinism,”
we
become
cap=ve
to
its
spell,
and
as
a
result
act
passively
toward
technological
change
• Technology
does
not
have
determining
power
on
its
own,
and
only
exerts
itself
if
we
believe
in
the
myth
of
its
ul=mate
power
• A
strong
and
confident
culture
–
with
its
beliefs,
values,
and
ethics
-­‐-­‐
is
the
best
means
to
channel
technology’s
energies
in
a
socially
construc=ve
manner
and
deflect
the
myth
of
the
machine
• One
powerful
resource
for
culture
with
which
technology
might
be
shaped
to
humane
purposes
was
ecology,
as
he
saw
in
ecology
and
design
principles
inspired
by
ecology
a
correc=ve
to
raw
technological
forces
• One
form
this
work
has
taken
is
the
pursuit
of
elements
of
what
scholars
call
a
“technoculture”:
elements
or
principles
within
culture
resistant
to
the
myth
of
the
machine,
and
useful
in
adap=ng
it
to
socially
construc=ve
ends

8. Exhibit
#2:
• Daniel
Boors=n
was
a
Pulitzer-­‐prize
Daniel
BoorsPn
winning
historian,
a
former
Librarian
of
the
U.S.
Congress,
and
one
of
the
most
widely
read
public
intellectuals
in
20th
century
America
• A
law
professor
by
profession,
he
was
beaer
known
as
a
historian,
and
his
many
books
on
American
history
sold
millions
of
copies
• His
best
known
book
on
technology
is
The
Republic
of
Technology,
published
in
1978
• The
key
idea
that
follows
from
this
book
is
the
“republic
of
technology,”
the
term
Boors=n
gave
to
the
form
in
which
technology
had
reorganized
society
and
Daniel
BoorsPn,
poli=cs
in
the
20th
century
1914-­‐2004

9. “Our
Republic
of
Technology
is
not
only
more
democra=c
but
also
more
in
the
American
mode.
Anyone
can
be
a
ci=zen.
Largely
a
crea=on
of
American
civiliza=on
in
the
last
century,
this
republic
offers
a
foretaste
of
American
life
in
our
next
century.
It
is
open
to
all,
because
it
is
a
community
of
shared
experience.”
BoorsPn
The
Republic
of
Technology

10. BoorsPn:
toward
a
republic
of
technology
• The
rela=ve
freedom
in
American
and,
by
extension,
Western
culture,
has
acted
to
historically
free
up
the
crea=ve
energy
and
entrepreneurialism
necessary
to
technological
innova=on
• This
same
talent
for
innova=on,
ironically,
also
leads
to
a
loss
of
the
freedom
and
diversity
that
characterized
life
in
the
West
• That
is
because
as
technology
becomes
more
powerful
in
American
(or
any
other)
society,
it
threatens
the
very
culture
of
innova=on
from
which
it
originally
sprung
• Technology,
ini=ally
a
spur
to
growth
and
ingenuity,
becomes
a
force
for
social
control,
excessive
cultural
accelera=on,
and
homogeniza=on
• That
is
because
technology,
when
it
is
unconstrained,
leads
to
two
nega=ve
outcomes
that
threaten
to
destroy
the
culture
of
innova=on:
Obsolescence:
With
the
advent
of
a
highly
technological
modern
world,
technology
has
changed
the
texture
of
life,
speeding
up
reality
remarkably
and
rendering
old
values,
paaerns,
and
technologies
obsolete
Convergence:
Technology
has
a
tendency
to
homogenize
experience
and
assimilate
reality
to
itself

11. Exhibit
#3:
Langdon
Winner
• Winner
is
a
professor
of
technology
studies
at
Rensselaer
Polytechnic
Ins=tute
in
New
York
state
• He
is
the
author
of
several
books
on
technology,
including:

Autonomous
Technology
 The
Whale
and
the
Reactor:
A
Search
for
Limits
in
an
Age
of
High
Technology
• A
former
rock
cri=c,
he
was
a
contribu=ng
editor
at
Rolling
Stone
in
the
late
1960s
and
early
1970s
• He
is
especially
interested
in
how
technology
and
our
poli=cal
systems
relate

12. Exhibit
#3:
Langdon
Winner
“While
it
is
widely
admiaed
that
the
structure
and
processes
of
technology
now
cons=tute
an
important
part
of
the
human
world,
the
request
that
this
be
opened
up
for
poli=cal
discussion
is
s=ll
somehow
seen
as
an
aaempt
to
foul
the
nest.”
Langdon
Winner
Autonomous
Technology

13. Winner:
learning
from
Frankenstein’s
monster
• We
are
vulnerable
as
a
society
to
what
Winner
calls
our
“technological
somnambulism,”
i.e.,
our
semi-­‐conscious,
sleep-­‐walking
agtude
toward
technology
• That
is,
once
we
release
technologies
into
the
world,
we
then
promptly
forget
our
responsibility
to
them
• He
means
here
our
responsibility
to
manage
them,
to
ensure
that
we
have
the
poli=cal
and
cultural
means
to
debate
and
manage
them,
e.g.,
cellphones
and
the
lack
of
e=queae
• In
this,
we
repeat
the
mistake
made
by
Dr.
Frankenstein
in
the
original
1812
novel
of
the
same
name
wriaen
by
Mary
Shelley
• In
the
movies
–
usually
starring
Boris
Karloff
–
the
monster
is
usually
seen
as
the
villain,
and
there
is
a
general
theme
of
technology
“run
amok”
reliably
expressed
there
• But
in
the
original
novel,
the
villain
is
Dr.
Frankenstein
–
the
monster
is
unnamed
–
who
upon
the
minute
the
monster
comes
to
life,
runs
off
to
Geneva
and
leaves
his
creature
alone
• For
Winner,
the
fact
that
we
make
the
monster
a
villain
in
the
movies
reflects
how
we
as
a
society
avoid
the
ques=ons
of
our
remarkable
neglect
to
think
through
what
a
technology
does
and
how
it
changes
us

14. • Donna
Haraway
is
a
social
cri=c
at
the
Exhibit
#4:
University
of
Santa
Cruz
in
California
Donna
Haraway
• Among
her
major
books
are
included:
 Primate
Visions:
Race
and
Nature
in
the
World
of
Modern
Science
 Simians,
Cyborgs
and
Women:
The
Reinven/on
of
Nature
 The
Companion
Species
Manifesto:
Dogs,
People,
and
Significant
Otherness
• She
is
famous
for
a
1991
essay
she
wrote
called
“A
Cyborg
Manifesto”
in
which
she
documents
the
terms
in
which
all
human
beings
can
be
considered,
in
a
technological
environment
in
which
we
are
immersed
and
on
which
we
are
dependent,
cyborgs
• She
doesn’t
mean
this
cyborg
iden=ty
on
a
merely
metaphorical
basis,
but
sees
it
in
more
literal
and
objec=ve
terms

15. “A
cyborg
is
a
cyberne=c
organism,
a
hybrid
of
machine
and
organism,
a
creature
of
social
reality
as
well
as
a
creature
of
fic=on.”
Haraway
A
Cyborg
Manifesto

16. Haraway:
get
to
know
your
inner
cyborg
• Haraway
argues
that
the
cyborg
is
not
a
nega=ve
development
in
society,
but
a
recogni=on
of
significant
changes
to
what
it
means
to
be
human
in
a
world
in
which
we
are
so
in=mate
with
technology
• Cyborgs
are
primarily
important
to
us
because,
as
models
of
21st
century
humanity,
they
signal
the
breakdown
of
fundamental
dis=nc=ons
in
culture
that
were
intact
for
centuries
 Machine/human
 Culture/nature
 Physical/non-­‐physical
world
(e.g.,
maaer
and
consciousness)
• Rather
than
lament
the
dehumanizing
effects
of
technology,
cyborgs
see
technology
as
something
that
has
extended
and
evolved
our
humanity

17. Lessons
from
the
technological
realists
Mumford:
• The
best
defense
against
the
“myth
of
the
machine”
is
a
strong
and
confident
technoculture.
BoorsPn:
• Technology
has
to
be
made
compa=ble
with
history
and
with
diversity
in
ideas
and
experience
to
be
con=nuing
value
to
people.
Winner:
• We
have
to
manage
and
debate
the
terms
of
our
rela=onship
with
technologies
before
they
become
en=rely
embedded
in
our
lives.
Haraway:
• Technology
has
forced
a
reinven=on
of
what
we
consider
to
be
our
humanity.
The
cyborg
recognizes
this
fact,
and
gives
us
permission
to
think
about
and
work
with
it,
rather
than
lament
the
loss
of
our
humanity
in
a
technological
world.